England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

Case No: LS18C00095

IN THE FAMILY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND  CHILDREN ACT 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF J

Date: 18 June 2018

Before :

HHJ Lynch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lynn Crabtree for the Applicant

James Cook for the 1^st Respondent

Ruth Coneron for the 2^nd Respondent

Laura Beevers for the 3^rd Respondent

Hearing date: 18 June 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This case is about a little boy who goes by the rather wonderful name of J and he is just four months old. His parents are referred to in this judgment as M and F and they both share parental responsibility for him. In this judgment I am going to call them (first name) and (first name) as that is how they like to be known. F has one rather older child and he lives with his aunt.
2. The local authority began these care proceedings when J was born because of worries about whether his mum and dad would be able to look after him because of their own vulnerabilities. An interim care order was first made the day after J was born and I have dealt with the case since then. To start with, both M and F had contact with J but by the end of March they made the difficult decision they could see that the best thing the J would be if he was adopted. At that point M stopped going to contact as she thought it would be too upsetting, but F has kept going and will keep this up as long as he is allowed to.
3. Because J’s parents decided not to ask for him to live with them, there has been little I have had to do except consider whether I agree with the view of J’s social worker and guardian that adoption would be best for him.

The Issues and the Evidence

4. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter and today each of the lawyers told me what their clients thought should happen for J.
5. The local authority was worried before J was born about whether he would be all right living with his parents. A doctor got in touch with the local authorities to say he was worried because M was pregnant and had learning difficulties. The doctor said people were worried about whether M and F would be able to look after a baby.
6. The social worker met with M and F to learn more about them and see whether those worries were fair. The social worker decided that F and M both seemed to find learning very hard. They did not seem to be able to take on board what people were saying they needed to do and then do those things. M and F did not seem to understand why people were worried about this or about the fact that F’s older son had not been allowed to live with him. F was also in a relationship with another woman who he lived with along with M and this seemed very confusing. That other woman seemed to control things and was making a lot of the decisions including about money. Also, they were living in a one-bedroom flat which was not in a good state and it was not somewhere a baby could live.
7. The social worker said F and M had been difficult to work with and had been unpleasant to the social workers. They did not seem to have support from people around them either and M particularly seemed to be saying she did not want to have her baby.
8. The local authority wanted to know more about F and M so got a psychologist involved who met with both of them and with the other woman. The psychologist said that M behaved in a very childlike way at times, that she was not able to understand how another person felt, seemed rather focused on herself, and the way she thought was very fixed. Looking at F, the psychologist said he did have a mild learning disability and he lent extremely heavily on the other woman to do practical things he needed and had done this for a long time. The psychologist felt there were a lot of complicated things in the relationship between the three grown-ups which would not be good for a child. Overall, she said she would have a lot of worries about the parents’ ability to meet J’s needs either together or separately.
9. Because of all that information J’s social worker said that he did not think J could live with his mum and dad and J’s children’s guardian agrees with that. The social worker says that after J is adopted there can be contact through the local authority’s letterbox scheme once a year with his parents and his mum’s mum and her aunt. This kind of contact could also happen twice a year between J and his older half-brother.
10. F and M thought carefully about what was being said and tell me they realise that the social worker is right. They very much wanted to be able to bring J up but they both want what is best for him. F in his final statement to the court says he knows he cannot give J what he would need from a parent. M too says that she thinks it would be best for Jif he was adopted. F is going to go on seeing J until an adoptive family is found for him, although contact will happen a bit less often as time goes on. Neither of them actually wants to say in court that they agree to the adoption but they are going to leave it to me to do what I think is right for J.

Threshold

11. Before a court can make orders of the kind I am being asked to make, it must be sure something called the threshold criteria are met. This means looking at how things were when the court case began to see if J was at risk of harm at that time because of how his parents would have looked after him. This is something that everyone involved in this court case has been able to agree, apart from the mother, as she has not been in touch with her solicitor recently. I have looked at those words and I agree they set things out correctly given all the evidence I have read. I have changed them a little bit and have put them, as I have approved them, at the end of this judgment.

Decision

12. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of J.  Wherever possible, children should be brought up by their parents and if not by other members of their family.  A court should not separate a child from its family unless nothing else will do, because it means interfering in family life. A judge has to think about whether there is support which any person or organisation could give to keep a child living with its family. I must also remember that J’s welfare throughout his life is my paramount consideration, the most important thing. And I need to make the order which will affect the family least but still get the right result.
13. The social worker says that I should make an order called a placement order, which means that J can be placed with a family who will adopt him. I cannot make a placement order unless F and M agree or if I am satisfied that I should go ahead without their consent, dispensing with it. I cannot dispense with their consent unless I am sure J’s welfare requires me to do that. The question is whether what J needs means that I should ignore the fact that his parents have not signed a form to say they agree to him being adopted.
14. So, I only have one option for J to think about, that of adoption, but I have balanced up the good and bad things about that in my mind. If I really did not think it was the right thing for him, he would remain in local authority foster care until he becomes an adult – that is the only other choice I could have today.
15. Having looked at all the evidence about M and F, I agree that if J was in their care he would suffer harm. Looking after themselves is enough for them without having to look after a baby as well. That is not their fault, it is a result of the difficulties they have. That though is the reality of the situation. As a little baby, J needs everything to be done for him and so he needs to grow up with people who are able to give him everything he needs. Sadly, I am afraid F and M are not. They would not be able to do all the practical looking after and also they would not be able to give him enough of what we call emotional warmth, something which is very important for a little baby. I know they love J and despite having made the decision they have F has kept going to contact with J. That is not enough though. There is no level of support which could be given to F and M to make up for the problems they have.
16. If I look at the option of J being adopted, he would be looked after by people who were able to do everything he needed, who will have been taught to help him deal with the fact that he has adopted as he grows up, and I know all of his needs will be met. He will have to move home but his foster carer will help him with that and he will take with him a book of photos and information about his start in life to help him. Hopefully M and F will be willing to help with gathering up information which J might like to know as he gets older, including photos of them. Being adopted will of course mean J will lose any chance of a relationship with his mum and dad, with his older half-brother, and with members of his wider family. That is a loss for him but I have to balance it against the importance of him having his own forever family.
17. So, looking at everything that I must and balancing everything up, I agree that the best thing for J would be for him to be adopted. He will know that his mum and dad wanted to do what was best for him and made this very brave decision for him, because they love him as much as they do. There is no other result which would be right for J. As a lawyer would say, this is the proportionate plan for J, the best thing for him, and so I do make a care order. I am also satisfied that J’s welfare requires me to dispense with F and M’s consent to placing him for adoption and I make a placement order.
18. There is one further order I am going to make.  It is really important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can understand what happened when they were little and why they were adopted.  This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be available on the internet, it will not have any of the people’s names in so J will not be able to know it is about him. So, it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing J up.  I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the local authority to J’s adopters so that he can see if it he wants when he is older. That however is on the basis that it should not be shown by the adopters to anyone else other than any medical or therapeutic staff working with J or his family.  It is very important therefore that the judgment is given to the Adoption Team to give to them. I have written this not for the benefit of the adults but for J and wish to be sure it reaches him.
19. Finally, I also make an order for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter and I reserve any future applications in relation to J to myself if available.

 

 

At the time protective measures were instigated, the threshold criteria as set out in s31(2)(b)(ii) of the Children Act 1989 were met in respect of the child J, and that J would be likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm.  The risk of significant harm was attributable to the child not receiving care that would be reasonably expected from a parent.

Findings made in previous related proceedings and adopted by the Court

There have been previous proceedings a number of years ago in relation to F’s older child, X, from his relationship with Z, that child’s mother.  X was made subject to a Special Guardianship Order in favour of his paternal aunt and uncle. The findings made in those proceedings are relied on in relation to J, on the basis that he would be likely to suffer the same or similar harm.

In those proceedings, the Court made the following findings:

1. Z and F have failed to provide X with safe and hygienic home conditions, in that;

a)      Cat urine and faeces were frequently present in the home, on the floor where X was changed, played or slept, placing X at risk of infection and disease.

b)      The cats were always able to gain access to X when he was on the floor, placing X at risk of injury, infection and disease.

c)      X’s Moses basket was surrounded by clutter placing X at risk of smothering.

2. Z and F have failed to provide X with a proper routine to meet his feeding, sleeping, hygiene and health needs, in that;

a)      X has been fed rigidly to a four hour pattern despite professional advice to the contrary.

b)      On at least one occasion X was left for nine hours between feeds.

c)      X has missed appointments for immunisations and post natal checks due to his parents being unable to prioritise X’s needs ahead of their own.

d)     X was bathed weekly despite professional advice to bath him every day or every other day.

e)      X has been fed ice cream and “choc-ice” at only 14 or 15 weeks of age.

f)       X is often awake at night and asleep through the day, mirroring his parents sleep pattern.

3. Z and F have been unable to co-operate with Social Services and other professionals to reduce the risk of significant harm to X and to ensure his basic care needs are met.

Findings made in these proceedings

1. M and F have been unable to maintain home conditions that would be appropriate for a child to live in. The property in which they have resided with another woman were found to be unhygienic and inappropriate for a child.  There was dampness in the bathroom and kitchen, the living room and bedroom were very cluttered.  The kitchen was also cluttered with dirty pots, the kitchen surfaces were cluttered with grease, belongings and medication.  The living room floor was also covered with dirt and cat faeces.
2. F is in a relationship with two women, the mother and another woman. The psychologist who assessed the three people concluded that the dynamics of this relationship lacked clarity for all involved and were not conducive for meeting X’s needs.
3. F does not have the ability to meet the range of needs of a child, based on his level of impairment, evidenced by the psychologist’s assessment. M does not have the ability to develop the range of strategies needed to meet the needs of a child and to consistently prioritise these over her own needs and feelings, evidenced by the psychologist’s assessment. The parents do not have the ability to meet the needs of the child, either individually or collectively. There is no intervention, practical or therapeutic the would be sufficient to address the limitations of M and F in respect of their ability to parent and meet the full range of a child’s needs.